-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
alcohol worse than crack and heroin..
- Thread starter jamie
- Start date
This article flew around Europe week or two ago and got me thinking. In my opinion is far from accurate. They tried to compare impact of LEGAL alcohol with impact of ILLEGAL street drugs on users and society. Not good enough. For example street smack is full of shit. 5% pure diacetylmorphine mixed with any poison imaginable to burst 'goofing'. No surprise it's toxic. They should compare pure diacetylmorphine impact on hospital patients and society against alcohol and so on. Because street drugs are illegal all the criminality happens, not way around...etc. I'm not trying to protect addictive drugs, just respecting objective studies like Jonathan Ott's. Alcohol is brutally addictive too and would be the winner anyway:d, but rest of the chart would look very different.
Regards.
Regards.
Ayawasqero
Esteemed member
Agree.
I think if they compared all drugs for what they are, and left out the legal ramifications, alcohol would win by with an even larger gap between it and other substances..I have watched alcohol completely fuck people up, people completely addicted to it that will just drink and drink until they are dead..it's worse than what i see in cocain addaicts..I never knew any active heroin addicts only recovered addicts to I cant comment much on that.
What it says is that in britain, alcohol is the most harmfull drug to society, while crack and methamfetamine are the most harmfull drugs for the individual.
It's obvious that in terms of harm to the individual alcohol can never be on the same page as crack or methamfetamine, while in total costs for society it is completely the other way round.
Alcohol is a drug of wich it's harmfullness is heavily dependant upon the amount taken. It is completely possible and common even, to take alcohol in amounts that are not harmfull.
Crack and methamfetamine on the other hand, are almost by definition very harmfull anyway. Nobody is gonna use crack or methamfetamine in not harmfull amounts, because the very reason these drugs are taken is because of their powerfull mind-altering effect.
Safe use of alcohol is possible, while speaking of safe use of methamfetamine or crack is a total contradiction. If anybody ever tells me that he uses crack or methamfetamine in a responsible manner, i will probably burst into laughter.
Alcohol is obviously more damaging to the british society because in britain during the weekends, almost everybody drinks untill he has reached a state of uncounsciousness and recently, tony blair revealed in his memoirs that he even drunk heavily in the period before the grand invasion in iraq.
In society's where drug X is the most popular abused substance, you will quite often see that the same drug X is also the substance that causes most damage to society.
Don't get me wrong, i don't like alcohol or the alcohollobby that wants us to think that alcohol is not a problem for our society's, but comparing alcohol to crack or meth makes no sense. If as much people in britain that use alcohol, would use crack or meth, then britain would be in a much more misserable state than it is now...i don't think anybody could disagree with that. Nobody would work, everybody would steal and loose themselves in blind agressive rage all the time...a bit like what the tories would like britain to look like maybe.
I hate alcohol. But not everybody who drinks turns into a junkie, while everybody who uses crack or meth surely becomes one.
It's obvious that in terms of harm to the individual alcohol can never be on the same page as crack or methamfetamine, while in total costs for society it is completely the other way round.
Alcohol is a drug of wich it's harmfullness is heavily dependant upon the amount taken. It is completely possible and common even, to take alcohol in amounts that are not harmfull.
Crack and methamfetamine on the other hand, are almost by definition very harmfull anyway. Nobody is gonna use crack or methamfetamine in not harmfull amounts, because the very reason these drugs are taken is because of their powerfull mind-altering effect.
Safe use of alcohol is possible, while speaking of safe use of methamfetamine or crack is a total contradiction. If anybody ever tells me that he uses crack or methamfetamine in a responsible manner, i will probably burst into laughter.
Alcohol is obviously more damaging to the british society because in britain during the weekends, almost everybody drinks untill he has reached a state of uncounsciousness and recently, tony blair revealed in his memoirs that he even drunk heavily in the period before the grand invasion in iraq.
In society's where drug X is the most popular abused substance, you will quite often see that the same drug X is also the substance that causes most damage to society.
Don't get me wrong, i don't like alcohol or the alcohollobby that wants us to think that alcohol is not a problem for our society's, but comparing alcohol to crack or meth makes no sense. If as much people in britain that use alcohol, would use crack or meth, then britain would be in a much more misserable state than it is now...i don't think anybody could disagree with that. Nobody would work, everybody would steal and loose themselves in blind agressive rage all the time...a bit like what the tories would like britain to look like maybe.
I hate alcohol. But not everybody who drinks turns into a junkie, while everybody who uses crack or meth surely becomes one.
I knew a girl that smoked meth every day. She was a very smart and nice girl who didnt steal form people, had a job, payed rent...didnt really seem like the stereotypical junkie..she just had a problem with meth..I have known alcoholics that were far worse than she ever was while she was addicted to meth..I didnt even know she was addicted to meth at all until my friend explained to me one day why his roommate talked incessantly and quickly to me at like 6am every time I was there..but she was really nice eitherway, and knew she had a problem and got help.
polytrip...
here in britain it's generally the tories that make people resort to drink, drugs and theft in the first place. they also have an uncanny knack of driving normally civilised people into those that throw bricks at policeman.
i don't hate drugs or alcohol, both can be used responsibly, both equally can be a catalyst to addiction for the weak.
i do however hate the tories.... passionately!
here in britain it's generally the tories that make people resort to drink, drugs and theft in the first place. they also have an uncanny knack of driving normally civilised people into those that throw bricks at policeman.
i don't hate drugs or alcohol, both can be used responsibly, both equally can be a catalyst to addiction for the weak.
i do however hate the tories.... passionately!
StrangeLoop
Rising Star
Polytrip I disagree completely. For one thing, they're all equal in the total amount of harm they can do to an individual, they all can kill. But I think alcohol is far worse than the stimulant drugs you're demonizing. Amphetamines were once used as performance enhancers (in the case of ADD, they kind of still are). Sure, someone completely twacked out of their skull is more likely to be aggressive and violent, but in smaller doses they will be more productive and efficient and probably clean their entire house and get all their bills sorted. Do you have personal experience with junkies that leads you to believe otherwise? Because if so you have a very one sided perspective on it.
And not everyone who smokes meth surely becomes a junkie. I have smoked meth twice, and honestly have no real desire to do so again. It was enjoyable but I feel like it's more abuse than my cardiovascular system can take.
And not everyone who smokes meth surely becomes a junkie. I have smoked meth twice, and honestly have no real desire to do so again. It was enjoyable but I feel like it's more abuse than my cardiovascular system can take.
I too disagree with Polytrip on some of the points made.It is possible to occasionally smoke crack and not get into trouble with it-although the majority of people who use it do run into problems.But to say it always causes problems, 100% of the time is buying into the media-hype and mythology.
Same applies to opiates but again its very few who can manage controlled use-but is perfectly well recognised that it is possible.Its also the case that the harm associated with opiates is associated with the impurities, less than sterile administration and the fact that it can only be acquired by associating with a 'criminal' element.These factors and the diversion of funds to pay for it rather than eating properly etc,are the reasons for the harm that comes with it.Pharm-grade diacetylmorphine with clean syringes and sterilised water can be used for a full life-time without causing undue physical harm.
Same applies to opiates but again its very few who can manage controlled use-but is perfectly well recognised that it is possible.Its also the case that the harm associated with opiates is associated with the impurities, less than sterile administration and the fact that it can only be acquired by associating with a 'criminal' element.These factors and the diversion of funds to pay for it rather than eating properly etc,are the reasons for the harm that comes with it.Pharm-grade diacetylmorphine with clean syringes and sterilised water can be used for a full life-time without causing undue physical harm.
I think polytrip's main point (and one i was going to make before he beat me to the punch
), may have gotten lost in the shuffle.
The study is specific to the UK. The UK has a much mediatized evolving culture of binge drinking, and alcohol has historically been their drug of abuse of choice. It is not surprising at all that a harmful drug that is widely used and accepted does more harm to the society in question than a harmful drug that is marginalized and exponentially less common.
A study in Algeria likely would have found that hashish is the most harmful to algerian society, as one in afghanistan surely would have placed opium and heroin well above alcohol. Sheer numbers...
One must be careful in interpreting studies like these (and in believing the interpretations of journalists, who are certainly not without agendas of their own). It is important in this particular study not to disregard its geographic and cultural specificity, which, far from being a flaw in the study, is its very point. The UK needs to sober up!!8)
Damn, after that i think i need a cupla finngores o dee ole sin-gull mauled!!
Cheers and bottoms up,
JBArk
EDIT: a very useful exercise would be to measure the use in the population of each drug and juxtapose the results with the results of the above study. It would then be surprising to some to see that a drug used/abused by 75% of the population (alcohol) is followed so closely in its "harm to society" index as one used by only 10% of the population. And yes, for the sake of the argument, i invented the numbers, but i betcha they'd actually prove to be very conservative!
), may have gotten lost in the shuffle.The study is specific to the UK. The UK has a much mediatized evolving culture of binge drinking, and alcohol has historically been their drug of abuse of choice. It is not surprising at all that a harmful drug that is widely used and accepted does more harm to the society in question than a harmful drug that is marginalized and exponentially less common.
A study in Algeria likely would have found that hashish is the most harmful to algerian society, as one in afghanistan surely would have placed opium and heroin well above alcohol. Sheer numbers...
One must be careful in interpreting studies like these (and in believing the interpretations of journalists, who are certainly not without agendas of their own). It is important in this particular study not to disregard its geographic and cultural specificity, which, far from being a flaw in the study, is its very point. The UK needs to sober up!!8)
Damn, after that i think i need a cupla finngores o dee ole sin-gull mauled!!
Cheers and bottoms up,
JBArk
EDIT: a very useful exercise would be to measure the use in the population of each drug and juxtapose the results with the results of the above study. It would then be surprising to some to see that a drug used/abused by 75% of the population (alcohol) is followed so closely in its "harm to society" index as one used by only 10% of the population. And yes, for the sake of the argument, i invented the numbers, but i betcha they'd actually prove to be very conservative!
^^Mr JBark makes a very good point. I agree that alcohol is the most damaging drug in the UK. It is because of the amount of people that have access to it. Drinking is ingrained into our culture on a very deep level...going to the pub and having a few pints is about as cultural as many Brits get I'm afraid. Thus alcohol has this far reaching capacity to inflict harm on many individuals. Luckily meth has never really caught on here...but yes I consider it one of the most revolting drugs in the world. Crack isn't good either, but I think its reputation may be overhyped. I met a guy who has been smoking it daily for a few decades. A friend of his said it was the only thing that actually balanced him out and made him 'normal'. Somehow he looked really quite young for his age, and was perfectly sane, although did rant on about conspiracy theory shit for ages which led to a confrontation between him and me...he irritated me to a very profound level. Anyway, it's all levels of use...I drink alcohol, and will be drinking some this eve...it is a fun social catalyst in my opinion, and I will continue to drink it. But it isn't something I depend for a daily fix.
Regarding to opiates. Diacetylmorphine is less toxic than morphine itself (6 times stronger, better cross brain cells barriers). It is far less toxic than synthetic opiates (methadone, buprenorphine, fentanyl). What killing those poor souls on the streets is not diacetlmorphine molecule. It's complex of cross addictions, dirtiness of drug, huge price for it and social situation. If you give addict a 40mg pure heroin pill (which is strong dose enough) and tell him to eat it, he will wait till you leave. Then he'll cook it with rohypnol pill on spoon and shoot that into his vein. Because he is addicted to smack plus needle ritual. I know the girl. She needs daily fixes of smack, crack, benzos and tobacco. And she is not alone. In the city I live is BIG drug scene, but badly supplied. It's sad sight I tell you. All because repressive laws against all drugs except ethanol and tobacco. There were done studies before on how would legalization of particular drug affect its price. You know competition and free market and stuff. Heroin is basically 10 times dearer now on the street just because it's illegal. There goes it impact on society...
Try to imagine if alcohol was illegal what street drug scene it would create. All drunks on the streets looking for fix and no alcohol available? Drinking denatured ethanol for 30 dollars a litter and shit...
Regards.
Try to imagine if alcohol was illegal what street drug scene it would create. All drunks on the streets looking for fix and no alcohol available? Drinking denatured ethanol for 30 dollars a litter and shit...
Regards.
Infinite I
JC
So I think instead of going to the pub, which I dont really do but instead ill stay in and inject some heroin! how ridiculous is that? I totally agree with polytrip, jbark also makes great points as this country worships alcohol and I like professor nutt as he has stood up for what he beleives in, he could well have a vested interest in this though what with the replacement alcohol hes working on,
Infinite I said:
Nobody is saying that. In my case I just don't like this article. It's sad they still not able to publish objective study in mainstream media. That is all. Let me ask you something. Why would you think that legalization/decriminalization of all the drugs (basically abandoning 'war against drug' policies) would force you to take them? When did free choice become ridiculous?
Respect and Regards.
Infinite I said:
I bet if heroin was legal and it was everyones drug of choice instead of alcohol the world would be a safer place. Diamorphine is pretty much 100% nontoxic except for the constipation and you could do it for a lifetime without ill effects, plus if everyone did it on the weekends everyone would just stay in and probably be in bed by 9, not getting in bar fights and car accidents.
Another important point is that alcoholics drink til death. Heroin users usually start to reduce dosage once the daily amount totals to about 2g.
Im not saying either is really good or horrible, im just saying that acting like theyre not comparable is ignorant.
The study is kind of misleading...
It's not saying those drugs are more or less dangerous per say
It's just trying to explain that Alcohol users tend to hurt others along with themselves more than any other substance user.
If your just hurting/killing yourself that counts as "1"
If you get in a wreck cause your drunk and kill yourself & 5 people that's "6"
that's how they are trying to explain it to my understanding
Harm to yourself vs. harm to others.
It's not saying those drugs are more or less dangerous per say
It's just trying to explain that Alcohol users tend to hurt others along with themselves more than any other substance user.
If your just hurting/killing yourself that counts as "1"
If you get in a wreck cause your drunk and kill yourself & 5 people that's "6"
that's how they are trying to explain it to my understanding
Harm to yourself vs. harm to others.
1992 said:
yea! except for the fact that when taken in a large dose it depresses the respiratory drive and causes the user to die due to lack of oxygen.
Its funny thing about how NONTOXIC opiates are in general. I work as an EMT in a big city in the NW USA. I go on close to 100 calls a year for opiate overdoses and guess what? None of the people die from opiate toxicity! They all die from lack of oxygen because they quit breathing.
) just stroll into the local chemist and get thier free legal dose.. yet LSD and mushrooms with the lower harm factor are class A, illegal?
